The other levels do start to bring the troops to a level of combatives,again the techniques taught are not done with gear on,they do get to wear an equipment belt but it is left open so they can roll and work on the ground.

Most troops do not reach the upper levels of the course,(most in Iraq now have what is seen on the video only)

The Military is in the process of changing the material.

Many see MMA(sport) as street applicable for all,but when one has on a vest,that restricts breathing and movement,a pistol belt loaded with gear and a weapon to protect,ground fighting is a last option and an officer should not stay on the ground fighting,they need to get back to their feet as quickly as possibe.

Ground fighting for Officers and military should consist of exposure to being taken down and then how to get up,not pin,submit or hold an opponent on the ground.

The reasoning behind integrating BJJ and Grappling at the fundamental level in training is simple. It is easier and offers the opportunity for pessure testing via force on force exercises. It requires no special gear and it develops a fighting spirit. It also offers unit commanders the unique opportunity to have his soldiers compete without the significant risk of injury associated with other competitive combatives events.

The integration of BJJ into the Army Combatives program is modeled after Military Sambo. Both offer combatives training with an athletic, competitive component. The goal was to mirror the effectiveness of Sambo in that respect.

The result is that now we have wide spread exposure to combatives training and it is a part of regular training as opposed to the manual collecting dust on a shelf. The old book may have been more battlefield specific in technique, but was largely ignored due to it's difficulty in integration. Soldiers had no confidence in the material as they could not test it.

As far as the Army changing the material? The Army is not quick to change anything and the program is still in the early stages, phase 1 which includes grappling. Phase 2 I am told returns to the feet and includes many of the strikes seen in the old manual as well as a training methodology drawn from Muay Thai. Phase 3 incorporates weapons, both improvised and not.

Fletch,I agree with your points:The program was made to instill confidenceProvide an engagement in a sport based on contactTo provide exercise and a competitive natureBut It is not combatives,it is sport based contact.The first phase was not put out to be the Battlefield combatives phase,it was put out to be the first step,the ground work towards the advanced material(no pun on ground work intended) and the sad part is many do not get the other levels.

The second and third phase are more along the lines of previous Combatives training that the Army had.

The Military is incorporating a form of battlefield training as part of the work up phase prior to deployment,in units not provided this training some trained members are developing their own unit training.

For SD purposes, BJJ and Ground is not necessarily the desired intent. For OOTW (Operations Other Than War) which seems to be a growing reality, the necessity to take people down and control them or injure them to degree becomes part of the secondary mission.

Fletch, nothing personal, but I don't feel like taking 5-8 weeks total time out of my life to get to the level I should be at. If my unit really wants me to do this, they need to take it seriously enough to dedicate reasonable time to training. Personally, knife fighting and bayonet training are far more valuable.

sorry - I would wonder why a soldier would want to know how to use a knife or bayonet, or to be more accurate, why put time into the training? basically, a knife is a less effectvie form of leathal combat. if I were putting effort and time into training, I would do it with either hand to hand, or stick fighting. it is almost inconceivable that a soldier would encourter a situation where a knife would be preferable to a firearm, while in todays realisty a stick often is.

Ok, why is a stick more effective in battlefield combat than a knife? Remember, laws do not prevent soldiers from using knives like civilians do and many soldiers carry knives with them in addition to their side arms.

not more effective, and not for battlefield applications. but a knife is nowhere near as effective as a firearm for a battlefield. so I would say that while a stick and a firearm are for different things, a knife and a firearm are for basically the same thing, and one is a hell of a lot less effective than the other.

basically, there are two reasons for using a knife1. to kill silently - and, frankly, a silenced firearm is much better for that.

2. if your firearm malfunctions. so, what is better training - to teach a soldier to fix any malfuction quickly, or to teach them to fight with a knife? for that matter, a small backup firearm can weigh almost as little as a knife.

realistically - you need to have a situation where you are stuck with a malfuntioning weapon, you are facing an enemy with a malfunctioning weapon and there is nobody to help either of you, for knife fighting training to pay off. you throw into that that you and the other guy are wearing a chunk of body armor, and have 3 foot metal clubs in your hands (your malfunctioning rifles) and how much good will a knife realy do?

You make a good point, however, according to many CQB articles I've read, a knife at close range is more dangerous than a firearm, most certainly more dangerous than a rifle. Assuming that there has been a weapon malfunction, a soldier will almost always have a side-arm. So in a way, I agree with you. Knife training, as with empty handed training, is basically pointless in a battlefield where long ranged weapons are the primary factor. However, according to what I've read and heard, the minimal CQB training which is provided is for the soldiers' comfort of mind, knowing that if everything gets FUBAR, they'll have their own combatives to rely upon until help arrives or until they can acquire a weapon (although it will be of minimal help, it's better than nothing). After all, a knife can't jam, and is hence, quite resistant to Murphy's law. A smart soldier will carry a side arm and a knife as backup weapons if possible.

I will point out that it is impossible to expect a soldier to repair his weapon in a CQB situation, which is the only situation a knife would ever be used on a battlefield. The methodology of CQB differs greatly from that of standard military engagement, I'm sure there are plenty of people around on this forum who can explain why. I do not have the technical expertise to do the subject justice.

Furthermore, the standard infantry armour used by the US military forces is not stab proof. This means that although it can stop a bullet, it can not stop a knife penetrating it with a stabbing motion. Since the greatest military force on the planet can not afford stab-proof vests, it is unlikely that any other military force will utilise them. Stab proof vests are more commonly worn by people in dangerous civilian areas. Knives have been used since medieval times against people wearing armour and a well known tactic against an armoured knight was to slice between the links in their armour.

I am by no means an expert on this, nor have I been in a military service, I am simply repeating the opinions of other, more knowledgeable, people I have spoken with on the subject.

fair enough points. I have been in the military, in a pretty good military infantry unit, and have seen combat and trained and led men for combat.

the military works in what should be a cost effective manner - I have never heard of a situation, in my army (Israeli Defence Forces) where a person was actually in a situation where a knife was usefull in an actual battlefield due to weapon malfunction - again, that basically means that your weapon malfuctions, you are facing somebody with a malfuctioning weapon and there is nobody around to help you. if you are facing somebody whose weapon hasn't malfunctioned, a knife isn't going to help you, for instance. if you have people around, they will cover you. the chance that you will actually use your knife is extremly small. the amount of time that was spent training you on that could be used better.

as to the lethalness of a knife - I would respectfully submit that anyone who says that a knife is more lethal than a rifle doens't know what they are talking about. you know the best way to kill a sentry? get 2 or 3 meters away and fire a half dozen rounds of 5.56 mm rifle ammo through his upper chest from a silenced rifle. a hell of a lot more lethal that trying to cut his throat. a soldier has no business getting into a range that is to close for a firearm to work. even in anti-terror opperations, firearms are a great deal more effective than knives.

as to fixing a firearm in the field - the vast majority (maybe 99%) of malfunctions with a modern rifle can be fixed in a few seconds by a trained soldier. typically the only ones that can't be are when the shell casing splits and gets jamed in a barrel. for example - I probrably fired a quarter of a million rifle rounds and soldiers who reported to me probrably fired another 20 or 30 million rounds, and I never saw this actually happen. the best use of a sodliers time, in training, is to teach them to handle their personal weapon as well as possible.

about armor - I don't know what type of armor the US army uses, but I don't see how it isn't stab proof. I think that what you mean is that it only covers part of the body, although I may be wrong. we used vietnam era flac jackets, and they would stop scrapnel and knives, and then we had ceramic plates on a small part of our chest and back that would stop small, low velocty rounds. my understanding is that the armor is better now, not worse. also, you have on a helmet, 8-12 magazines, various other gear that is pretty thick and surounds your vitals. it isn't that easy to get to the vitals of a soldier with a knife.

There is a big controversy over the current interceptor body armour which has been utilised in the armed forces over there in the states since the Bush administration came into power. Your average bullet proof vest is not stab proof, although it will protect against slashing knife attacks. A wire mesh is required to prevent a knife tip from penetrating and most vests do not contain such a mesh. There are numerous alternatives which only cost a small amount more and would provide significantly higher protection, for example, Dragon Skin armour provides level IV ballistic protection and is also stab resistant as I understand it. It's worth reading about, I'm surprised more people don't know about it. The majority of ranking officers in the US prefer to wear Dragon Skin but the average grunt doesn't have the privilege...

As to knives as weapons, I still don't see how a stick could be any more effective. Again, I'm sure there are some CQB experts around the place who can provide you with better information. As I understand it, CQB is quite a different approach from standard infantry combat.

I believe that most of the CQB tactics in most military forces derives from trench warfare, where close combat was essential. Times have changed, although in urban combat, this kind of training may be more relevant.

Furthermore, the amount of time spent training knife tactics is apparently extremely limited anyway. Stuff like BJJ is supposedly far more consistently trained these days because it promotes physical and mental readiness in soldiers who may be asked to start a grappling match at any time as a conditioning drill. Various articles I've read promote this training method.

1. let me clarify - my position is that a knife and a firearm serve essentially the same purpose - killing people. whil ethe vast majority of what the army does is lethal, in todays reality armies are often called in to use less than lethal force. a stick is perfect for less than lethal force. if I had to commit X time to training, and Y to knife training, I would remove the knife training and replace it with stick training.

2. I understand what you are saying about armor, but a soldier is not a terribly target rich enviroment for a knife. I once saw a friend get hit with a pice of shrapnel from a 155 mm shell, a piece maybe 10 inches by 4 inches - it came zipping through the air and embedded itself in a magazine in his web belt, without breaking his skin. I would not be thrilled about tring to find a spot in a soliders body that I could easiely hit with a knife and kill him. much eaier to shoot.

3. I would be happy to have anybody who actually knows american QCB doctine tell me what I am missing - but from what I know the doctring that the US adopted before the entry into Iraq came directly from Israeli doctine for close quarters - something that I drilled on for tens of thousands of hours. if you look at the opening of the video, you see teams of 3 and 4 men standing very close to each other, going into buildings. this is typically what it is all about - getting two men into a room firing accurate and rapid fire without hitting each other, and having 1 to 2 people close behind them (without getting hit by accident) ready to take their place if one is hit or has a weapons malfuntion.

Well I will have to admit that I didn't read extremely deep into your conversation between eachother, as I'm pressed for time at the moment, but I'll offer my little bit of input.

I have recieved a decent amount of CQB training, though not certified in it, since my battalion insists on using the "free flow method" of room clearing.

I'll say a couple of things. One is that a bayonette (fixed) and a combat knife (K-bar) are two completely different beasts. You could almost compare a fixed bayonette to a halberd (medieval style). You never hear about people acutally using their bayonettes except in those miraculous old war stories. Where as as far as I'm concerned a combat knife is what you use to level the fighting grounds in a hand to hand fight.

Let's face it. If both your primary and your secondary is jammed or out of ammo, you're A: probably in the army (sorry I couldn't help it)and B: in a world of sh!t already.

Now nobody wants to bring a knife to a gunfight, but a knife to a baseball bat/stick/baton/pipe/whatever fight is a different story.

It's pretty easy to block a stick no matter how much it hurts you'll still live. Most tangos aren't wearing hard (or even soft )body army like us, and if you get one good jab with a knife in the fight is pretty much over and hopefully your buddies have cleared the rest of the room and are moving upstairs now, and you still get to live to go clean your dirty weapons and maybe reload from all the spray and pray =D

_________________________
Freedom is not free, but the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share.
Capt. Dolan USMC

The Army and Marines are better at different things, the army is better at losing and the Marines are better at winning! lol I oculdn't helo THAT! ha ha

_________________________
Member of DaJoGen MMA school under Dave Hagen and Team Chaos fight team under Denver Mangiyatan and Chris Toquero, ran out of Zanshin Martial Arts in Salem Oregon: http://www.zanshinarts.org/Home.aspx,

Ok, how about this, my primary weapon is the M240B machine gun. My secondary is an M16A2. I can't fix a bayonet to the MG, I'm not effectively clubbing someone with it in the middle of an oh s### situation, and it is definitely a long range weapon (10m is way too close). So, I get trapped in a building, My rifle jams, and someone is coming toward my location, presumably hostile and armed. My best bet is to ascertain what I safely can, leave a minimal safety margin for fratricide avoidance, and use the bayonet as a knife or a kbar.

1. are you really carrying both a medium machine gun and a carbine? that seems not to be the best way of working, but I have no idea what is SOP where you are. we usually had the machine gunners just carrying a maching gun and a handgun, or a knife (and I would say this is one example when a knife is a good back up weapon).

2. why are you clearing rooms with a medium machine gun? wouldn't it be a better idea to have you providing squad/platoon security? its hard enough to clear rooms with a carbine, a machine gun is not the right weapon, IMO.

3. a machine gunner has less reason, than anybody else, to be all alone in a room with a bag guy. if that is the case, sure, maybe your knife if what you need to survive. but I am not saying that a knife is not a good weapon - I am saying it is a waste of training time. what is the chance that you will be faced with knife welding enemy when you are alone and your firearms are all inoperative?

That would be my company MTOE, I carry an MG and a rifle backup. Honestly, I would never be clearing rooms in Iraq, my unit's mission is route clearance. But if civil war does break out in Iraq, I could get caught in the middle of it. Therefore, some time spent training for a broad range of "what if" situations isn't wasted.

I hump the mg on foot, I have both in a vehicle, as we are a mech unit. However, a 27 lbs mg is nothing to swing like a club. So, if all hell does break loose, then yes, some what if training that works in many situations is helpful

Bushi, I've been in country 13 1/2 mos. Ive never seen a 240 gunner without a pistol or WITH an addtional rifle and Ive never seen a 240 gunner or any other solodier ALONE in the field. depending on where you mob you may get the warrior school CQC block. That'll shed some light on expedient weapons. (hint, dont limit your thinking) Definetly have a good sheath knife on your IBA. I cant believe how this thread wont die and the twists it takes. You might check out my previous thread on army combatives. K-

Kman, thanks for some insight. I just know what I'm assigned as a primary and secondary weapon. Who knows what will change when I get downrange. I do know I haven't even touched a m9, outside of one training exercise about six months ago. We'll see how it develops.

Erm -The form is ALL sloppy, I mean, come on, the guard escape puts you in a choke...And how did Juijitsu start? Because samurai were loaded down with too much _gear_ and _armour_ for striking to be effective. If for some reason I got into a hand-to-hand match with a S.W.A.T. bloke, I'd go for a takedown, no doubt.

Not another BJJ is the best!!!!!Please!! As far as I know and some of the research that I have found, BJJ is for mainly fighting on the ground. For sport, matches with rules, etc in a battle field would be useless and I would not take the risk with it in a battle ground. After my research I learned that samurai would fight standing up and would do throws and finish either by cutting, stabbing or a blow to a sensitive area not by spending 10 minutes on the ground while there is fighting going around them, people dropping dead cut up and bleeding all over. While you are on the ground waiting to finish with a submission. In some cases no need to do a throw, a nice cut with their swords was enough.In war this days you would rarely use H2H. Most soldiers are well armed and trained to use knives and other objects to survive an attack if their weapons jam. It would be nice to see videos where soldiers are in full gear and try to grapple on the ground.

I'm not saying that BJJ is the best, I'm saying grappling evolved out of necessity, and was pushed away due to pride. It's more effective than one may think, but not the end-all be-all. ...And the US Army doesn't do it right.

Okay, I know this thread was started a couple of years back, but I see that there are still ome people responding to it...

I am certified in Modern Army Combatives, Level 3.I am an still on Active Duty in the US Army.I have spent time both in the Infantry and the Special Forces.

Having established that let me say this:

Modern Army Combatives is about confidence. Agreed, Level 1 is very basic and does have its limitations and problems. Level 2 comes full circle and ends the BJJ / grappling training. Level 3 brings into play boxing, stick fighting and kick boxing. Finally there is a Level 4 which is more admin in nature and focus on how to be a trainer and how to organize training and competitions at the higher levels (brigade and up in the Army).

Modern Army Combatives is not necessarrily meant to terach Soldiers an "alternative" to lethal force. It is meant to give Soldiers the confidence that in an unarmed fight they will have methods and techniques that they can use to, "close the distance, gain dominant body position and finish the fight." Yes, we practice most of the techniques with no boots on and no gear on... no system is perfect. Modern Army Combatives gives us Army guys a system to train from within the Army, and a system of competition within the Army. Also ther are many Soldiers that use this training as a springboard into MMA fights in their local area.

Give me any system and I'll show you how it is ineffective (my kung-fu is better than yours argument). For the Army, we were looking for a system that would foster the warrior spirit, give decent baseline skills (to everyone... Infantryman, Truck Drivers, and Admin Specialists alike). The fine Soldiers of the 75th Ranger Regiment looked to a BJJ centric system that works quite well.

Oh, and BTW... knives and bayonets? I'd rather be a bad ass grappler than a bad ass knife/bayonet fighter. NO one fights with knives and bayontes, and if I do get a weapon malfunction in the heat of battle I am more likely to have nearly a dozen others around me armed to the teeth to pick up the fight before I have to put my hands on someone. In 3 combat deployments since 9/11 I have known Soldiers who have killed enemy with firearms, and one friend who used some Judo throw that broke a guys neck, but no knife fights.

Hey, thanks for the insider perspective. So, can we assume that you feel that this training program is an improvement on the previous ones? Is there anything else that you feel could be done better, or is not being addressed?

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Matt, that is an insult, I gave you an insider's perspective, along with the MA perspective. I still feel it is a waste of training time. If they want to teach anything "combatives" they need to teach something worthwile, not add time and make PT more difficult than it already is.

Matt... yeah there are always things that can be added to make the system better. With the military you have to look at our training base methodology... we focus much of our training toward the lowest common denominator... so the more difficult or technical the system becomes, the more difficult it is to train to those who just don't get it.

Bushi_no_ki... settle down brother! I in no way was indicating that MAC is the be all and end all, only that it is better than nothing at all, and it has done a good job at unifying unarmed fighting systems in the Army. It sounds like you are in the Army there at Ft Carson, perhaps MAC has been forced on your unit by people that are "qualified" only on paper. If you are in 10th Group there then you would be familiar with LINES which is a much more devistating system, but was exclusively used (by the Army) by SF. MAC simply is a system that the "whole" Army can use with relative ease and even with lack of training equipment (weapons, etc...) and fosters what the Army is after as far as the Warrior Ethos. Your comments earlier were spot on, but sometimes we have to look at the big picture and decide what is best for all the Soldiers, not just the upper 20%.

Many times on internet forums (and I in mo way imply that this is the case here at all) people speak with good intentions about how the Army (or any other service) is doing something and they are just misinformed. My point here is to try to (1) establish that I am speaking from the position of experience (as in actually being a Soldier on active duty for nearly 18 years) and (2) just give insight to the Army's point of view. While there are issues with MAC, I do feel that the bottom line is that it is a worthwhile system for the whole Army... and it sure beats endless "buttstroke to the head series" runs of bayonet training! Heck, if your unit isn't doing it right, FIX IT! Yeah it takes soome work, but get to Level 3 so you are the trainer for your organization. It is too easy to sit back and throw stones, fixing a problem takes real character.

no128s, I just noticed the SF motto at the bottom of your post. No, I'm not SF, but I am familiar with 10th Group. I have had the opportunity to work with them a couple of times and they are some good people. It just irked me that they had E7s and E8s that were younger than me.

As far as my unit goes, I and the other martial artists have fixed part of the problem. We complained so much about combatives being a waste of our time, we don't do them on a regular basis anymore. A few of us also made offers to teach a more rounded program to the Soldiers in our unit. Nothing has come of that. But, you're right, I and four other people who are martial artists should remember that the other hundred people in our company don't have any MA training outside what the military has given them. I'm just worried that the bad habits taught by the MAC instructors here on post will get them hurt or killed in a barroom brawl in downtown Springs one weekend. It would be one thing if the ground game was part of what they taught, but the ground game is all they teach until you get into the higher level certifications, and we aren't getting that level of training.

MSG Larson.....I and completely aginst the teaching of the Modern Army Combatives Program. I've read the history of your efforts to revamp the Army's hand to hand program but you and your superiors continue to make the same fundamental mistakes that the Army makes, trying to find a shortcut to training soldiers. let me offer you a reality check....."You Cant!!!!!" If you try to take shortcuts when it comes to training in the martial arts if you try tio take shortcuts you're inviting trouble. On average (and I speak from experience) It takes 8 hours a day at a minimum, and 5 to 6 days a week to become proficent in the basics of any martial arts system, when you put this kind of time and effort into training both the body and the mind you develop 1:the muscle memory as well as the reflexes to apply the tecniques effectively without thinking about it, 2:the mental serenity as well as the mental clarity to see the true intentions of an attack.

As it stands the Army as a whole from what I've seen isn't devoting that kind time into training soldiers. then there's the question of practicality. the ground isn't the safest place to be, especailly in two types of environments 1: the battlefield 2: a bar, nightclub or the street. you are vulnerable 360 degrees in the guard position and vulnerable 180 degrees in the mounted position. Now let's add to that in the tactical environment: 1 you're wearing your full kit kevlar, ballistic eyewear, IOTV with ESAPI plates, 7 mags 1 inthe weapon the rest in ammo pouches, camelback with water, elbow and knee pads anf your weapon (in this case the M4) that's roughly 40 maybe 50 lbs ( I might be off by a few lbs)now ask yourself if you were the average "Joe" and you got into a hand to hand situation with this kind of weight is the ground either guard or mounted really the best place to be?

You and your boss traveled to different countries throughout asia looking for something that could be readily taught to our soldiers, the trouble that you ran into was that the arts themselves were "cultural in nature" have you ever given thought to this: It isn't the art but the practitioner that makes it effective.

Last but not least the concept of the clinch drill. now the soldier has to rush into a barrage of punches while protecting their face, you're not allowed to parry the punches or re-direct them you have to move into them head on and achieve the clinch. the concept is that if you get hit you keep going, what you fail to realize is that most people won't get a "second chance" all it takes is one solid hit I.E.the one hitter quitter and all that achieve the clinch goes down the drain. When I went through the level 1 certification in Korea I parried the punch it worked and I achieved the clinch without getting my face pummeled. Matt you need to rethink this program and talor it to fit soldiers who have martial arts training as well and not just untrained soldiers.

MSG Larson.....I and completely aginst the teaching of the Modern Army Combatives Program. I've read the history of your efforts to revamp the Army's hand to hand program but you and your superiors continue to make the same fundamental mistakes that the Army makes, trying to find a shortcut to training soldiers. let me offer you a reality check....."You Cant!!!!!" If you try to take shortcuts when it comes to training in the martial arts if you try tio take shortcuts you're inviting trouble. On average (and I speak from experience) It takes 8 hours a day at a minimum, and 5 to 6 days a week to become proficent in the basics of any martial arts system, when you put this kind of time and effort into training both the body and the mind you develop 1:the muscle memory as well as the reflexes to apply the tecniques effectively without thinking about it, 2:the mental serenity as well as the mental clarity to see the true intentions of an attack.

As it stands the Army as a whole from what I've seen isn't devoting that kind time into training soldiers. then there's the question of practicality. the ground isn't the safest place to be, especailly in two types of environments 1: the battlefield 2: a bar, nightclub or the street. you are vulnerable 360 degrees in the guard position and vulnerable 180 degrees in the mounted position. Now let's add to that in the tactical environment: 1 you're wearing your full kit kevlar, ballistic eyewear, IOTV with ESAPI plates, 7 mags 1 inthe weapon the rest in ammo pouches, camelback with water, elbow and knee pads anf your weapon (in this case the M4) that's roughly 40 maybe 50 lbs ( I might be off by a few lbs)now ask yourself if you were the average "Joe" and you got into a hand to hand situation with this kind of weight is the ground either guard or mounted really the best place to be?

You and your boss traveled to different countries throughout asia looking for something that could be readily taught to our soldiers, the trouble that you ran into was that the arts themselves were "cultural in nature" have you ever given thought to this: It isn't the art but the practitioner that makes it effective.

Last but not least the concept of the clinch drill. now the soldier has to rush into a barrage of punches while protecting their face, you're not allowed to parry the punches or re-direct them you have to move into them head on and achieve the clinch. the concept is that if you get hit you keep going, what you fail to realize is that most people won't get a "second chance" all it takes is one solid hit I.E.the one hitter quitter and all that achieve the clinch goes down the drain. When I went through the level 1 certification in Korea I parried the punch it worked and I achieved the clinch without getting my face pummeled. Matt you need to rethink this program and talor it to fit soldiers who have martial arts training as well and not just untrained soldiers.

The Army has to take a shortcut to training hand to hand combat because the Army doesn't have the time available to train it the way you recommend. We have more important things to train like tactics and marksmanship. Whether the Army uses Karate, BJJ, MT, or whatever, it will never train that much other than for maybe a week or a couple weeks for Cert. Why spend hours on that crap when you can spend hours teaching guys to shoot and clear rooms properly. I graduated from basic in April 2009 and went to Iraq July 2009. I'm Infantry. Training that much on ANY system of h2h would've been disastrous. Our training for the deployment was sub standard as it is. That being said you can make guys pretty effective in short time. Just ask Paul Vunak. You don't have to spend 8 hours a day 5 days a week for years to be a good enough fighter to survive in most situations. An hour or two a day for a couple months, with the right drills, can at least enable guys to survive if they somehow find themselves without weapons. Luckily the liklihood that you'll find yourself completely unarmed in combat agaisnt another guy either armed or not is nill. War isn't mma. If I run out of ammo or my weapon jams and the other guy is up close I'm using my m4 to muzzle thump and butt stroke the guy until he's unrecognizable.

If that isn't an option I'll grab a rock, or my knife, or SOMETHING. There's always something you can use as a weapon which is always better than being unarmed. MAC isn't great but it's not bad, it builds aggression and toughness. Including some boxing in lvl 1 would be nice but whatever, most guys do that anyway.

You'll probably never end up in that situation. If you do like I said there's always something else to use as a weapon or buddies to help you. If you are a soldier and end up fighting unarmed you're an idiot. It's easier to kill someone or disable someone with your rifle or a stick even then your fists (although some of the hard knuckle tactical gloves out there are pretty good for that if I might add). It's true you don't want to go to the ground in that situation, especially with so much crap on, but trust me you won't even CONSIDER doing it with all that weight. It definitely removes the desire to go to the ground purposefully.

At least they teach how to choke a guy out right away. If you get into a bar room brawl throw something at the dude, kick him in the balls throw him down and choke his a@@ out. If he has buddies and you don't bother to pick up a weapon, once again you're an idiot.

About the clinch drill, you are way off, you CAN block or parry, and you CAN re-direct. I did lvl 1 last year with the clinch drill and not once did they say you can't do any of that, you just can't hit them (which makes no sense). You said yourself you parried a punch to get the clinch. Most guys find it's faster and safer to just "crash" in and clinch instead of moving around. The longer they spend swinging at you the more likely they are to connect. Now if you can hit back then it's more logical to move and look for a shot.

Still, the fact you can't hit while attempting the clinch, and aren't taught striking at all till lvl 3 is stupid. I like MAC though much of it makes sense. I'd rather they teach RAT with slightly ,ore basicd groundfighting involved. all in all it doesn't really matter because warfare is martial arts or mma. This isn't a street brawl. It's "die die die"...

You say it's the practioner not the art so why are you criticising MAC anyway? According to that statement it shouldn't matter. A bit contradictory I think.

_________________________
Member of DaJoGen MMA school under Dave Hagen and Team Chaos fight team under Denver Mangiyatan and Chris Toquero, ran out of Zanshin Martial Arts in Salem Oregon: http://www.zanshinarts.org/Home.aspx,

If it was up to me, the only changes I would make to lvl 1 would be instead of spending half of test day making everyone demonstrate every step of a few of the techniques, talking through it detail by detail, spend that half of the day teaching fundamental boxing or muay thai and how to use it to work into a clinch, then put both instructor and trainee in mma gloves and light face masks, allow both to hit and then have the trainee work for the clinch.

I would put in a time limit for how long a trainee can stay disengaged and striking lest they fail so they don't sit there and do the Mohammed Ali thing and float like a butterfly all day. I also only like one clinch they teach. I hate that thing where you go behind, tuck your head in their back and grab their hips and I don't care much for the underhooks. I would teach the thai clinch and the 3rd one they currently teach where you have two arms on one of their arms and your head in their chest (can't think of the name). Heck maybe just teach guys to straight blast (or boxing blast whichever or both) using RAT as the starting point. Otherwise I think all the groundfighting is good. If for some reason you end up in an h2h situation in combat however unlikely it'll probably be in a tight room and include a lot of grappling so it's good to know how to handle some trying to throw you down or getting on top of you. More likely they'll just grab with one hand and stab you with the other or try to grab your weapon.

Which brings me to another point-quit the stupid bayonet stuff and teach weapons retention and just muzzle thumping and butt stroking on bags a lot. That's a lot more likely to happen. Seriously, we spent two hours one day just doing stab and slash combos against air. We didn't even do the bayonet assault course. Talk about a waste of time.

Hey Bushi, just get a group together and go to the gym, pull out mats and train on your own from time to time, that's what we did in Iraq. Sometimes it was only 2 or 3 of us but it helped. Why do you need the whole command to be involved once your got rid of the stuff you didn't like? Good job getting your way with the leadership btw, that never would've happened for us.

Edited by Stormdragon (06/21/1007:46 AM)

_________________________
Member of DaJoGen MMA school under Dave Hagen and Team Chaos fight team under Denver Mangiyatan and Chris Toquero, ran out of Zanshin Martial Arts in Salem Oregon: http://www.zanshinarts.org/Home.aspx,

hahahahahahaha that's hilarious if that's what he thought. I was like "uuuuh, are you sure MSG Larson is actually here?"I can't wait for level2 combatives. They should start including throws and a few strikes with that course. Love your quote btw

_________________________
Member of DaJoGen MMA school under Dave Hagen and Team Chaos fight team under Denver Mangiyatan and Chris Toquero, ran out of Zanshin Martial Arts in Salem Oregon: http://www.zanshinarts.org/Home.aspx,

Whilethis is an old thread I'll give an update. I helped instruct a level 1 course about a year ago. Now they also teach weapons retention, some knee strikes from the clinch and half Thai clinch, and ways of maintaining distance from an attacker trying to close on you. I have no complaints now. I'm going through level 2 right now and it builds on the same groundfighting drills while adding in takedowns and knife fighting. Again no complaints. It's particularly good for the Army as we need good grappling skills do to all the detainee operations, security and Police type work we do. Not everything can be solved with beating the guy to death.

_________________________
Member of DaJoGen MMA school under Dave Hagen and Team Chaos fight team under Denver Mangiyatan and Chris Toquero, ran out of Zanshin Martial Arts in Salem Oregon: http://www.zanshinarts.org/Home.aspx,

I'll bring in an update, now that I'm out. Storm, for me the changes were too little too late. My physical well-being declined fairly rapidly the last half of my career. However, I'm glad to hear they actually started incorporating material that would actually do some good. I've never been one to downplay grappling skills. My biggest complaint has always been that what they teach is impractical for military purposes. Starting on the ground does nothing for the soldier who needs to be able to move. Basic kickboxing would better suit the Army's needs, especially if they handed out something like a rubber ducky or jo staff, which had to be held on to throughout training (minus disarm specific training).

The other issue is the Army never devoted the necessary time to training in h2h. If we had spent more time in the gym as a unit, or on the grass, then the ground game could have been taught more practically. Once a week, or once a month, is simply not enough. And, what's worse, is that if I had been able to spend three days a week hitting a heavy bag when I couldn't train, I might have been better able to maintain my physical health.

Israel stands out as the example. Krav Maga is still a requirement during service. It's simple enough to teach someone in a few short weeks and be able to use effectively when the scenario arises. You don't have to be that good, just good enough. That's what a military needs to train.